I responded to what was said. I did not alter your post when I quoted it.Why are you deliberately ignoring what was actually said and choosing to respond to what wasn't said?
I responded to what was said. I did not alter your post when I quoted it.Why are you deliberately ignoring what was actually said and choosing to respond to what wasn't said?
I meant in terms of what tabzer said but it's not that important. I just have an issue with these black and white labels being used when convenient to support a particular bias. I recall you saying in the past that you can be vaccinated and anti-vax, so it seemed hypocritical when you said you can't be pro-vax if you're not vaccinated.I responded to what was said. I did not alter your post when I quoted it.
I thought I was clear. If a person is opposed to vaccination, particularly if it's accompanied with unsubstantiated and conspiratorial nonsense, it's anti-vax by definition. I don't know what's confusing about it. Sometimes a black/white issue is a black/white issue.I meant in terms of what tabzer said but it's not that important. I just have an issue with these black and white labels being used when convenient to support a particular bias. I recall you saying in the past that you can be vaccinated and anti-vax, so it seemed hypocritical when you said you can't be pro-vax if you're not vaccinated.
That was something you inserted in response to me saying that someone who hasn't been (can't be) vaccinated can still be pro-vax. And you said,"by defintion, blah blah," and then you reinvented everyone's pronouns.I thought I was clear. If a person is opposed to vaccination, particularly if it's accompanied with unsubstantiated and conspiratorial nonsense, it's anti-vax by definition. I don't know what's confusing about it. Sometimes a black/white issue is a black/white issue.
They are not comparable. One has to do with a physical virus that can be spreads. Another is an area psychology has to tackle and it's mental. Your friend is fat so you find it ok to not take care of yourself either. It says like a virus but its not a virus. It's more metaphorical (this is probably not the right word to use I'm drawing a blank right now but you get what I mean).I don’t know why you’re getting pushback on this - it’s been a well-known fact for many, many years now that obesity is what scientists describe as “socially contagious”. The chances of a given individual becoming overweight increase by an astonishing 57% if they have an obese friend.
https://www.printfriendly.com/p/g/PLhSxk
Here’s a NYT article on the matter, with an analysis courtesy of the New England Journal of Medicine. I did everyone a huge solid and bypassed the paywall, since apparently I’m the only person on this website who knows how to do that, given some previous experiences of posting articles from pages with paywalls. Original link for the sake of consistency:
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/health/25cnd-fat.html
Matters look even worse for households - if mom and dad are fat, guess who else is going to be fat? The children. It’s not “glandular”, it’s laziness and ordering take-away 6 days a week. That, and “not moving”. Not really a thread about obesity, just chiming in since it absolutely is contagious, and it spreads through communities just like a contagious pathogen would.
Surely it would be the opposite.Do we inject something into fat people?
Gee, who do I trust, a guy on an Internet forum or established and qualified scientists who have tested this hypothesis multiple times and found it repeatable in the course of the last 14-15 years? This one’s a tough nut to crack.They are not comparable. One has to do with a physical virus that can be spreads. Another is an area psychology has to tackle and it's mental. Your friend is fat so you find it ok to not take care of yourself either. It says like a virus but its not a virus. It's more metaphorical (this is probably not the right word to use I'm drawing a blank right now but you get what I mean).
Like saying Democrat beliefs & thinking on gun control is like a virus to the population, and must be stopped. Or saying Communism thinking is a virus that spreads and destroys countries. This is not comparable to the covid virus in that its a physical virus that spreads. You can reduce the risk of covid by vaccinating. But how do you reduce the risk of fat people having mental influence on other people. Do we ban fat people from places? Or ban people from having fat friends? Do we inject something into fat people?
Obesity is a disease but you don't need a Science Degree to know how it spreads is way different then how Covid spread's c'mon.Gee, who do I trust, a guy on an Internet forum or established and qualified scientists who have tested this hypothesis multiple times and found it repeatable in the course of the last 14-15 years? This one’s a tough nut to crack.
I am perfectly happy with the idea of a “social contagion”. I refer you to the term “human malware” that was recently coined - idiotic ideas that propagate within society to disasterous effects. Obesity is a disease, and it’s a disease that spreads via enabling and complacency. It’s “contagious” if we accept the definition that it spreads from one organism to another, the definition doesn’t specify the means of how it’s supposed to spread.
”How it spreads” wasn’t the point of contention. Follow the conversation.Obesity is a disease but you don't need a Science Degree to know how it spreads is way different then how Covid spread's c'mon.
I was since I was part of the conversation that started with Lacius and Fast.”How it spreads” wasn’t the point of contention. Follow the conversation.
Let's be clear that you've been trying unsuccessfully for some time now to argue that a person who is willfully unvaccinated isn't necessarily anti-vax, and I corrected your mistake. If your position has changed to be that you're only creating exemptions from being anti-vax for people who are not medically able to get vaccinated, then you and I might be in agreement depending on the circumstances.That was something you inserted in response to me saying that someone who hasn't been (can't be) vaccinated can still be pro-vax. And you said,"by defintion, blah blah," and then you reinvented everyone's pronouns.
If he was drawing a comparison in terms of total cost as you claim then “not being able to handle them the same way” is like saying that the sun is warm because ice is cold - one has nothing to do with the other. If you really want to fight this windmill you’ve constructed, at least find counter arguments within the same category. A comparison in terms of cost is rooted in numbers, so unless you have some numbers to provide, you have no rebuttal. I’d argue that obesity is costing the public *more* when it comes to cost of treatment, for reasons I will delve into below.I was since I was part of the conversation that started with Lacius and Fast.
I have no Idea why Fast brought up Obesity or what his angle was. His main point was about mandates. If obesity is a bigger problem for the Health Care system then Covid then we should include mandates for Obesity to stay logically consistent, this what he was trying to get at. But Mandates for Covid would be obviously different then the mandates for Obesity, because the very nature of these diseases are different. And like I said in my previous post. How do we mandate for Obesity? Do we ban fat people so they won't be contagious and bad influence to other people? Do we ban them from markets, from restaurants, from school until they get skinny? This would be consistent with how we handle covid mandates, on who's vaccinated or not & prevent the negative impact on our health care system from more people getting fat.
Fast was saying he was not drawing comparisons between covid and obesity. But it's obvious he was drawing comparison when it comes to the cost on our health care system. And the two are not comparable because we can't handle them the same. If this wasn't what fast was getting at then I have no idea why he even brought up health care system costs and comparing the two. Or whats the point of bringing it up in a covid debate.
Thank you for the reply, since I can tell you worked hard on it, but people who are opposed to the COVID-19 vaccines are indeed anti-vaxxers, per just about every definition I'm aware of (including ones you have posted). If you want to make a distinction between "anti-vaxxers" and those who are "vaccine-hesitant," you're free to do that, but it isn't how most people are using the terms, the distinction doesn't appear particularly useful, and I don't think it changes any substantive point I've made about vaccines in this thread and others.@Lacius - anti-vax are those who are against any form of vaccination whatsoever. Your definition is wrong.
Most people arguing here against vaccine mandates are even in favor of inactivated virus vaccines.
And even those who reject all CoViD-19 vaccines, aren't fighting against vaccines to prevent polio, tetanus etc.
You are indeed making a grey issue into a black/white one.
Here are some excerpts. Pay attention to the lack of quantifiers, which means all, not some in first order logic:
If a person denies all vaccines but one, they do not fall into the complete definition of anti-vaxxer.
It's a fuzzy set.
"A vaccine denier or anti-vaxxer will be defined in this study as someone who believes vaccines do not work, are not safe or refuse vaccines for themselves and their children if applicable." - https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-021-12114-8
"a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer
"Vaccine hesitancy is a delay in acceptance, or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccine services. The term covers outright refusals to vaccinate, delaying vaccines, accepting vaccines but remaining uncertain about their use, or using certain vaccines but not others.[1][2][3][4] "Anti-vaccinationism" refers to total opposition to vaccination; in more recent years, anti-vaccinationists have been known as "anti-vaxxers" or "anti-vax"." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy
I agree that a person who is willfully unvaccinated isn't necessarily anti-vax, and I know you don't agree, but that definitely was not the argument.Let's be clear that you've been trying unsuccessfully for some time now to argue that a person who is willfully unvaccinated isn't necessarily anti-vax, and I corrected your mistake. If your position has changed to be that you're only creating exemptions from being anti-vax for people who are not medically able to get vaccinated, then you and I might be in agreement depending on the circumstances.
I don't think I said anything relating to pronouns.
an anti-vaxxer only has to be opposed to one reputable vaccine
If the science supports fourth or fifth booster shots, then yes, they will be anti-vaxxers, as are those who already willfully refuse the annual flu vaccine.When people stop getting their fourth and fifth booster shots, they will be labelled as both unvaccinated and anti-vax.
imo there is a difference between antivaxxers and those who don't want a vaccine themselvesIf the science supports fourth or fifth booster shots, then yes, they will be anti-vaxxers, as are those who already willfully refuse the annual flu vaccine.
Clearly not.but people who are opposed to the COVID-19 vaccines are indeed anti-vaxxers, per just about every definition I'm aware of (including ones you have posted).
Wrong as well. Lack of quantifiers = all in any high order logic.I also don't agree with you that a lack of qualifiers defaults to "all" in colloquial language, but I'm about done with these semantic arguments that don't really matter to me.
If the science supports fourth or fifth booster shots, then yes, they will be anti-vaxxers, as are those who already willfully refuse the annual flu vaccine.
It's not that science is a religion, but generally it's a good way to decide which path to take when several are afforded to youClearly not.
Wrong as well. Lack of quantifiers = all in any high order logic.
Colloquial language is full of quirks, including subjectivity, which is why we don't use it when having a serious discussion.
But since logic/semantics isn't the focus of the talk, let us agree to disagree.
And once again, science is not the ultimate answer to everything. It's a nice tool, not a source of truth.
What is true to science right now, and has been such for millenia, can be false in the very next second.
That is the nature of science.
It's a great way to analyze trends, and an excellent orientation tool, but it is not a way to get definitive answers. Decisions dictated by science alone with no intuition on some sort of external verification method are akin to blind faith, and a dumb one, since science is liable to change.
Science has determined Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are safe, based on experimental statistical sampling methods (I'm majored in Computer Science and post-grad. in Mathematical Modeling), which by themselves are subject to error.
As a matter of indisputable fact/truth, no mathematical model has correctly predicted the outcome of the pandemic, since there is only so much the tool called science can do for you, since one of the main drawbacks of scientific research is that
knowledge itself is limited: you can't know everything you need to study a certain subject.
Not to mentions the limits of "nature": there is a point where you just have to stop asking "why?".
"Why gravity exists?"
"Why negative and positive attract each other?"
And so on.
Every question begets another one in an endless cycle.
Sorry for the philosophical digression, but it's sad to see someone take science as a religion.
I see little to no difference between someone who is against vaccines and someone who doesn't get the vaccine because of opposition to the vaccine.imo there is a difference between antivaxxers and those who don't want a vaccine themselves
I don't think a person can be willfully unvaccinated at this point without being actively against the vaccine.I think to be called anti-vax you should be actively against the vaccine or vaccines in general
Except the conversation was literally about colloquial language and nothing else.Colloquial language is full of quirks, including subjectivity, which is why we don't use it when having a serious discussion.
I don't think anybody claims science to be a source of absolute truth. It is, however, the best (and only) tool we have. When our scientific understanding changes, it's because the evidence changes, not because the methodology changed.And once again, science is not the ultimate answer to everything. It's a nice tool, not a source of truth.
What is true to science right now, and has been such for millenia, can be false in the very next second.
That is the nature of science.
It's a great way to analyze trends, and an excellent orientation tool, but it is not a way to get definitive answers. Decisions dictated by science alone with no intuition on some sort of external verification method are akin to blind faith, and a dumb one, since science is liable to change.
Science has determined Covid-19 mRNA vaccines are safe, based on experimental statistical sampling methods (I'm majored in Computer Science and post-grad. in Mathematical Modeling), which by themselves are subject to error.
As a matter of indisputable fact/truth, no mathematical model has correctly predicted the outcome of the pandemic, since there is only so much the tool called science can do for you, since one of the main drawbacks of scientific research is that
knowledge itself is limited: you can't know everything you need to study a certain subject.
Not to mentions the limits of "nature": there is a point where you just have to stop asking "why?".
"Why gravity exists?"
"Why negative and positive attract each other?"
And so on.
Every question begets another one in an endless cycle.
Sorry for the philosophical digression, but it's sad to see someone take science as a religion.